On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> On a micro-optimization level, it might be worth passing the TID as
>>> ItemPointer not ItemPointerData (ie, pass a pointer until we get to
>>> the point of actually in
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> On a micro-optimization level, it might be worth passing the TID as
>> ItemPointer not ItemPointerData (ie, pass a pointer until we get to
>> the point of actually inserting the TID into the index tuple).
>> I'm not sure th
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On further review, this is definitely the way to go: it's a
>> straight-up win. The isnull array is never more than one element in
>> length, so testing the single element is quite trivial. The
>> attached, revised patch
Robert Haas writes:
> On further review, this is definitely the way to go: it's a
> straight-up win. The isnull array is never more than one element in
> length, so testing the single element is quite trivial. The
> attached, revised patch provides a modest but useful speedup for both
> hash an
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Andres Freund
>>> wrote:
>>> > On 2014-05-05 13:52:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> >> Today, I disc
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > I also think it's possible to have similar optimization for hash index
> > incase it has to spool the tuple for sorting.
> >
> > In function hashbuildCallback(), when buildstate->spool is
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > On 2014-05-05 13:52:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> Today, I discovered that when building a btree index, the btree code
>>
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> > On 2014-05-05 13:52:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Today, I discovered that when building a btree index, the btree code
> >> uses index_form_tuple() to create an index tuple from the
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-05 13:52:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Today, I discovered that when building a btree index, the btree code
>> uses index_form_tuple() to create an index tuple from the heap tuple,
>> calls tuplesort_putindextuple() to copy that t
Hi,
On 2014-05-05 13:52:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Today, I discovered that when building a btree index, the btree code
> uses index_form_tuple() to create an index tuple from the heap tuple,
> calls tuplesort_putindextuple() to copy that tuple into the sort's
> memory context, and then frees
Hi,
Today, I discovered that when building a btree index, the btree code
uses index_form_tuple() to create an index tuple from the heap tuple,
calls tuplesort_putindextuple() to copy that tuple into the sort's
memory context, and then frees the original one it built. This seemed
inefficient, so I
11 matches
Mail list logo
